But it's clear that the main concern for this group and for most of the African Americans who have taken issue with the book and film is centered around the protagonist of the film itself. This is evidenced in the concluding paragraph of The Association Of Black Woman's Historians statement:

In the end, The Help is not a story about the millions of hardworking and dignified black women who labored in white homes to support their families and communities. Rather, it is the coming-of-age story of a white protagonist, who uses myths about the lives of black women to make sense of her own. The Association of Black Women Historians finds it unacceptable for either this book or this film to strip black women’s lives of historical accuracy for the sake of entertainment

In other words many African Americans see this as yet another film championing The Great White Hope. They're pissed that Hollywood (and, in this case, the literary world as well) is using their civil rights movement to pimp a white character, suggesting that people of color not only need a brave, progressive white individual to lead them into action but to convince them to take any action at all. The good whites save minorities from their bad white oppressors. This feels both insulting and inaccurate to minorities. To quote one blogger, "When it came to the civil rights movement, whites were the help."

I understand the criticism. In fact I relate to it so much that I didn't read the book until someone lent it to me and don't plan to see the movie until it's free on demand.

And yet I actually don't have a problem with the book or the movie as an individual entity. For me the problem is the individual movies that are not being shown.

You see I do believe that when one group of people are deprived of basic civil rights it's not just a problem for the group that's being discriminated against. It's also a problem for the entire society in which they live. Minorities in this country have been playing an extremely difficult game of catch up ever since the civil rights act was passed. Since our grandparents were frequently deprived of the right to an education that was on par to their white peers our parents were not able to turn to them for academic or career guidance and obviously there were no family homes or farms to inherit and often not enough money to provide a stable home environment conducive to learning. And of course the passage of the civil rights act didn't actually erase racism or the discrimination that held so many back. It wasn't until the late 1990s and early 2000s that a large percentage of minority families began to find themselves in the position to buy property and those minorities were often steered toward those toxic mortgages even when they had strong income or credit. In fact studies show that blacks were five times more likely to be guided toward a high interest subprime mortgage loan then their white counterparts who had equal and lower income. Many of those same black families were later forced into foreclosure that contributed to the housing crisis. We all know that the housing crisis was NOT simply a black problem. It was an EVERYBODY problem. It screwed up our whole economy in the same way that surging minority unemployment is adding to our nation's overall financial struggles now. It's a perfect example of how whites have a vested interest in ensuring that EVERYONE is given equal access to good information, opportunity and education and are treated fairly. That's just sound economic policy.

It's also the moral thing to do. Prejudice against any group brings hate into a society. It builds fear, resentment and insecurity within both the group that is being discriminated against AND the those who are surrounded by peers who are trying to victimize that minority group. Prejudice weakens our society and all the individuals within that society. Therefore the oppression of African-Americans isn't a "black story," it's an American story. If Stockett wanted to create a protagonist who was able to find herself by taking part in what is a human struggle I don't begrudge her that. There were many white Americans who did exactly that during the height of the civil rights movement. They defied their peers and fought for what was right. And yes, sometimes they acted as motivators for some of the minorities they had the opportunity to speak with.

That's part of this American story and it needs to be told.

But it's not the whole story. In fact it's really just a small fraction of it. Because for the most part the civil rights movement really was a grassroots movement within the black community. It was Rosa Parks who decided she would no longer move to the back of the bus. It was Martin Luther King Jr. who inspired us. It was Malcom X who told us our anger was justified and needed to be acted on. Regardless of what you may think of these leaders they, and many others like them, were the leaders of this movement. And they were black.

But Hollywood has barely given them as much as a nod since the beginning of the 21st century.

When I was a kid there was a movie titled Mississippi Burning. It was about two white FBI agents investigating the murder of civil rights workers. None of the main characters in the film were black. Some in the black community objected to that but personally I liked the movie. It spoke to the atmosphere in the country during a turning point in our history and it spoke to the conflicts that existed within the white community about the changes that were taking place. Again, it's a story that needs to be told.

It also debuted in the same decade as The Color Purple, Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing, Gandhi (a movie about East Indians standing up for East Indians), The Last Emperor (a movie about the changing society of China as seen through a CHINESE perspective) and so on. In that environment movies like Mississippi Burning seemed to fill in an overall narrative that was being told. In fact the 80s were ushered in by the mini-series Roots and by the time the decade had reached its last year Malcolm X was already in production.

The movie The Help comes on the heels of films like The Blind Side (which caused its own uproar), The Last Samurai and Avatar (the latter films raising the ire of Courtland Milloy at the Washington Post and many others). All of these are films that tell us how whites can save us. These days when a movie does explore the civil rights movement through a minority perspective it gets very little marketing and it's often only shown in select independent theaters. Similarly, when you walk into a bookstore you'll have to go to the tiny little corner reserved for the African American section to find new black authors who want to write about the civil rights movement. Even Walker and Morrison are frequently relegated to this spot, carefully kept away from the shelves that are frequently perused by the majority of readers. It's within this environment that The Help, a perfectly good book in its own right, feels offensive to black audiences.

I hope this trend is going to change because I honestly don't think that Sockett or Michael Lewis (who wrote the book The Blind Side was based on) deserve the wrath of the black community.

The problem is not the books and movies that are being marketed and fed to the public. The problem is the books and movies that we're not being given a chance to experience.

Last Sunday the New York Times ran an article about Amazon's latest attempt to woo authors over to their imprints. They will be sharing numbers with them. Not only will they tell them how many books they sold over a period of time but they'll tell them how many they sold in each location around the country. The New York Times article suggests that this will do nothing more than make authors more neurotic or obsessed about their sales then they already are.

To me that's kind of insulting. I have never been given numbers on my sales from my publisher without asking for them. I have to wait a year before I find out what percentage of my sales are ebooks, what percentage are paperbacks and what percentage are audio. And until I read that article I didn't even know it was possible to find out what areas of the country my books sell best in. I don't think it makes me neurotic to want to know this information. After all, it's my career. But to be honest, my main motivation for wanting those numbers is because it would make self-promotion so much easier!

Every publisher expects their authors to promote their own works. Even Jennifer Weiner has to design, buy and place her own ads in the New York Times and whatnot and only celebrity authors and A-listers get sent on tours these days. The reason for that is that publishers don't believe that tours work for authors. I don't think they necessarily believe that ads work either. That may be true in some cases but I really think it depends on the individual situation, book and author.

For instance, publishers will always tell you that at any Author event a large percentage of attendees will leave without buying a book. Okay, I believe that's the norm. It's never actually happened to me because if nothing else I'm really good at connecting with my audience. I have sold out of books at more than one event. I've never had more than one or two people leave a book event without buying a book excluding those who bought the book shortly before the signing. The problem for me when it comes to public readings has nothing to do with getting those who attend to buy a book. My problem is figuring out which locations I should tour to that will give me the biggest turnout. For instance, I toured in Denver and didn't get much of a turnout at all. I toured Orlando and people drove up from Miami and Fort Lauderdale just to see me. Apparently I have a big following in Florida. If I had known that I would have scheduled tours there for other books. But I don't know. So I've spent my money touring around to places hoping that maybe this is a location where my sales have been strong. I always inform my publisher of what my publicity plans are and they have never stepped forward and said, "Oh, that's great! Here's some info that might be helpful to you!" This by the way is in no reflection of my editor who has always been incredibly supportive and as helpful as he can be. But honestly, I don't think even he has the numbers as to how my ebooks are selling or where my paperbacks are most popular. That's all with another department that can't be bothered.

There's currently a TV show in development that's based loosely on my books. That enables me to shop my next book to several different publishers. However after sitting down with my agent and talking to her about Amazon it's hard to argue that their imprint might not be the best place to go. In addition to being able to access numbers, authors are presented with marketing plans before they sign the contract. So you know exactly what Amazon is going to do for you and what they won't. I defy you to find me an author who has ever gotten such a deal from one of the New York publishers. Sure, after they sign you they'll tell you they plan to publicize your work...assuming there is a plan which is rarely the case. But again, sometimes there is and if you're really lucky they may even contract a publicist to work with you. But the publicity and marketing is not a contractual obligation. If you think their plan is ineffective it's unlikely you'll be able to sway them in another direction and there's always the very likely chance that the entire plan will fall through without being fully executed.

I know the publishing houses hate Amazon. I know that they do have a few very valid reasons for that. But I also know that if Amazon continues to focus on the business angle of book-selling, focusing on marketing directly to consumers while publishers continue to focus all their marketing efforts on booksellers then more and more bestselling authors will go to Amazon.

Because it's not just about the art of writing. It's also about making a living.

For those of you who haven't heard, Feminist Extraordinaire, Gloria Steinem has called for a boycott of NBC's new series Playboy Club, which will debut this September, stating that the show:

"...normalizes a passive dominant idea of gender. So it normalizes prostitution and male dominance."

When I read this my first thought was, maybe Ms. Steinem should actually watch the show before she condemns it. After all, as far as we know the show accurately depicts the sexism of a pre-feminism society. Steinem respects Mad Men for doing exactly that. So why is she so quick to assume that's not going to be the case her

NBC and the producers of the show have been predictably enthusiastic about it. NBC Entertainment Chairman, Robert Greenblatt says:

"I don't think it will be like Mad Men. I think it is a really fun soap."

When I read this I thought, okay, maybe it won't represent the sexism of the time accurately but is that really so horrible? After all, there have always been women who firmly reject Steinem's definition of feminism. Some women willingly choose, even covet, the opportunity to live the Playboy Bunny lifestyle. We saw it in The Girls Next Store. We tolerate the playboy like groupies that are a permanent fixture in Entourage. We rewarded Showtime's Secret Diary Of A Call Girl with impressive ratings. So this is another male-fantasy show that might have enough silly soapy goodness to attract women. Fine. It's just not something I can get myself too riled up about.

And then I read Playboy Club's producer Chad Hodge's remarks about his new show:

"The show is all about empowerment and who these women can be, and how they can use the club to be anyone they want."

When I read that I thought, Chad, sweetie? Don't make me go all Gloria Steinem on your ass. See I have no problem with NBC creating a show about women who enjoy being Playboy bunnies. Despite Steniem's well renowned and revolutionary expose that she wrote after going undercover as a real Playboy Club Bunny in 1963 I do believe that some women were happy with their professional bunny status. But the idea that women could use the Playboy Club to be "anything they want," hints at a limited and somewhat misogynistic imagination. Could you use the Playboy club to help launch an acting, singing or modeling career? Undoubtedly. In fact you could still do that today. But could a woman use it to launch her career as a politician? A lawyer? A nuclear physicist? I'm gonna go with no. And no matter what your end goal is, being ogled by strangers and objectified at your workplace is not empowering and never has been. Women who use Playboy to get their musical careers off to a strong start see it as a necessary evil or if not an evil at least an uncomfortable but strategic career move. Keep in mind, were not talking about women who were actually on the cover of Playboy. We're talking about women who were all wearing the exact same outfit, each presented as just one of many sexy women that were there to cater to the men at the Playboy Club. You can make a fun soap out of that by showing us that these women are individuals with their own unique ambitions and ideas about ambition, love and sex. But you can't make the club a tool of empowerment.

But again, I haven't seen the show and I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that Hodge was simply being inartful in his description of the show. So I'm going to hold off judgement. Ironically the controversy Steinem helped create has virtually insured that I will watch at least one or two episodes if for no other reason than that I want to have an informed opinion about it.

I'm just crossing my fingers that by the end of the premier I'm smiling not cringing.

A while back I wrote that I went on a skincare shopping binge. Now that I've been using the products for a little over a month it seems only fair that I tell you what's worth splurging on and what isn't. I have to say some of the products are so awesome I, for the first time in YEARS, will now venture out of my home without makeup and like, you know, go places! So although this isn't a beauty blog I just have to share because I'm kinda becoming a skincare-geek. Besides, you know you wanna know.

Clarosonic Mia: Totally worth it. It cleans clogged pores in a single bound! It exfoliates your skin and no matter WHAT products you're using they're going to be a lot more effective because they'll penetrate further into your skin.

Neutrogena Healthy Defense: It does the job; as in it's no better or worse than all the other decent daytime moisturizers out there. It says it contains "superior anti-aging sun protection" otherwise know as...wait for it...basic sunscreen! If you're using Aveeno and you love it stick with that. If you're paying $50 for Lancôme's Primordiale-whatever, switch.

Neutrogena On The Spot Acne Treatment: SO WORTH IT! I can't believe I'm including an acne cream on my list but this stuff is like magic. It has a low level of benzolyl peroxide but for some magical reason it seems to QUICKLY clear up my occasional flareups of hormonal chin acne (doesn't that conjure up a lovely picture?) without drying out the surrounding skin. I'm not sure how they do it, pixie dust, bird poop...I don't know. I don't have the patience to read the full ingredient list but I know it works faster than anything else I've ever used with no drawbacks.

Perle Skin Brightening Cream by Neocutis: If you have any uneven skin tone or hyper-pigmentation whip out the Visa because this stuff is pricey but oh-so-good and ooooh-so-addictive. Of all the products I bought this is one of my absolute favs. I saw a difference in a week!

Lumière by Neocutis: Worth it (with a caveat). The skin around my eyes is now positively silky and my dark circles are diminished BUT if you're like me and your only noticeable eye problem are mild dark circles (and not fine lines which is what this stuff is really made for) you can probably get the similar effect for cheaper.

Lancôme Bi-Facil Eye Makeup remover: So not worth it. This is supposed to be more effective than other eye makeup removers and gentler on the eyes. That's why it's 5xs more expensive than all the other eye makeup removers. Whatever. Stick with the $5 wipes you can buy at Trader Joes. You'll save money AND you'll get a free sample to munch on. Remember, they never give you free tasters of popcorn shrimp at the Lancôme counter

Skinceuticals Renew Overnight: Proof that there is a God and She loves us. Seriously this stuff has changed my face. I can now glow without doing anything drastic like, I don't know, dipping myself in radiation or getting pregnant. AND the fine lines on my forehead are barely noticeable now! I love, love, love this product. I think it might even be worth taking on a second job so you can afford it...well, okay maybe not. But if you DO have to take a second job this product will keep you from looking stressed about it ;-)

Okay, that's it. Hope you don't mind my taking over a literary blog with something this superficial. But what's the point of living in a capitalistic society if you're not going to engage in the occasional superficial pleasure?

BUY NOW

ALSO BY KYRA DAVIS

ABOUT KYRA DAVIS

I'm the internationally published author of the Sophie Katz mystery series, and So Much For My Happy Ending. My first Erotic Fiction Trilogy will be released in January 2013.

Aside from that, I'm a single mom; I'm addicted to coffee and True Blood (the show, not the drink). I'm happy with who I am yet I’m always striving to be better; I have more bad hair days than good ones, I love a challenge but I am not fearless, I’m….well…just me.